Jump to content
  • 0
sidmis

Pio in the office of state advocate general

Question

sidmis

Rodrigues complains against AG before Bar Council of Mah

as reported in NewKerala.Com (UNI), June 6

 

Panaji, Jun 6 : Social activist Advocate Aires Rodrigues has filed a complaint before the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa against Goa's controversial Advocate General Mr Subodh Kantak for his alleged professional misconduct.

 

Mr Rodrigues had drawn the attention of the Bar Council to a note moved by the AG on July 15, 2005, seeking to terminate the services of Special Public Prosecutors Mr A P Cardozo and Mr V P Thali, who were handling the prosecution of criminal cases against former Ministers Mr Dayannad Narvekar, Mr Mauvin Godinho and Mr Somnath Zuwarkar.

 

Prior to becoming Advocate General, Mr Kantak was defending these former Ministers in various corruption-related cases.

 

The complaint stated that since Mr Kantak had appeared for Mr Narvekar, Mr Godinho and Mr Zuwarkar before becoming Advocate General, he could not have moved such a note to benefit his former minister clients.

 

The government records obtained by Mr Rodrigues under the Right to Information Act had revealed that Mr Kantak as Advocate General had made recommendations for change of special public prosecutors in criminal cases in which he had appeared earlier for the accused former ministers.

 

When this action of the government in changing the special Public Prosecutors was challenged in the High Court, the AG, after his initial appearance for the state, subsequently did not appear but continued to manipulate, monitor and co-ordinate every move in the petition before the High Court by even assisting in the drafting of affidavits, the complaint said.

 

The AG had also, by a note dated 06/07/2006, proposed that the State of Goa engage the services of Senior Counsel from Mumbai Mr Aspi Chinoy with fees of Rs 1,35,000 per appearance along with Advocate Nitin Sardesai and Mr Mahesh Sonak with fees of Rs 5,000 per appearance to defend his former minister clients in the High Court, the complaint said.

 

The notings of the files obtained from the Law department under the Right to Information Act, which allegedly reveals that Mr Kantak as Advocate General had acted in rank violation of professional ethics, had also been sent to the Bar Council.

 

Stating that Mr Kantak's acts amounted to a conflict of interest, Mr Rodrigues has in his complaint stated that the AG had misused his position as to oblige his political masters Mr Narvekar, Mr Zuwarkar and Mr Godinho, whom he was earlier representing.

 

Demanding the Bar Council's action against the AG, he had in his complaint stated that the actions of Mr Kantak amounted to ''gross interference in the process of administration of justice and that he had degraded the high constitutional post of Advocate General.''

 

 

--UNI

 

Rodrigues complains against AG before Bar Council of Mah .:. newkerala.com Online News - 122442

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
Aires Rodrigues

Does the Office of the State Advocate General have to have a P.I.O

 

Aires Rodrigues

T1 - B30, Ribandar Retreat

Ribandar - Goa - 403006

Mobile: XXXXXXXXXXXX - Deleted mobile number - posting against forum rules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
karira

The Advocate General of the State is a constitutional post and authority duly appointed under Art. 165 of the Constitution of India.

 

Therefore it is a Public Authority as defined in Sec 2(h) of the RTI Act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
karira

As reported by UNI in indianlawnews.com on 28 December 2010:

IndlawNews

 

Legal notice to Goa's Advocate General calling upon him to forthwith comply with provisions of RTI Act

 

Advocate Aires Rodrigues served a legal notice on Goa’s Advocate General Subodh Kantak, calling upon him to forthwith comply with the provisions of the Right to Information Act.

 

Rodrigues has given the Advocate General 48 hours to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act, including the designating of Public Information Officers in his office as was required under the Act or face legal proceedings.

 

Reminding Mr Kantak that the RTI act was enacted to promote transparency and accountability, Rodrigues has drawn the Advocate General’s attention that though the Right to Information Act became law on June 15, 2005, the Advocate General has not complied with the provisions of the Act for over five years.

 

Rodrigues has, in his notice, stated that the Advocate General is a 'Public authority' as defined in section 2 (h) of the RTI Act 2005, being a constitutional authority, under the Constitution of India.

 

He drew the attention of the Advocate General that as a public authority, he was required under Section 5 of the Act to designate within 100 days of the Act having become law, Public Information Officer to provide information under the Act to persons requesting the same from the AG’s office.

 

Rodrigues has also stated that Section 4 of the Act required the Advocate General to publish and make public within 120 days information details about the Advocate General’s office.

 

He said failure to comply with the provisions of the Act for over five years was a matter of concern given that Mr Kantak was the First law officer of the State.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
karira

As reported in digitalgoa.com on 07 January 2011:

DigitalGoa.com - Goa, Goa Breaking News, Goa Holidays, Goa Centric Portal, Goa Yellow Pages, Explore Goa, Goa News Headlines, Goa News, Goa Current Affairs, Goa Events

 

State Information Commission summons Goa's Advocate General

 

Panaji, January 6- Goa State Information Commission has today issued notice to Goa’s Advocate General Subodh Kantak directing him to personally appear before the commission on 21st January at 10.30 am in connection with the complaint filed against him by Aires Rodrigues for non- complying with the Right to Information Act.

 

The notice to the Advocate General Subodh Kantak follows the petition filed by Aires Rodrigues against Subodh Kantak for his failure to comply with the provisions of the Right to Information Act.

 

Rodrigues has stated that the Advocate General is a “Public authority” as defined in section 2 (h) of the RTI Act 2005, being a constitutional authority constituted under the Constitution of India

 

Rodrigues has further submitted that the Advocate General as a “public authority” was required under Section 5 of the Act to designate within 100 days Public Information Officers to provide information under the Act to persons requesting the same from the Advocate General’s office.

 

Rodrigues has in his petition sought that the Advocate General Subodh Kantak be penalized in terms of section 20 of the RTI Act for not complying with the provision of the Act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Atul Patankar

As reported at indlawnews.com on February 18, 2011

 

he Goa Chief Information Commissioner Motilal Kenny will on February 28 deliver his verdict on the complaint filed by Advocate Aires Rodrigues against the Advocate General of Goa Subodh Kantak for not complying with provisions of the Right to Information Act.

 

Arguments in the case were heard today.

 

Appearing on behalf of Advocate General (AG) Subodh Kantak, Mahesh Sonak argued that the Advocate General was not a 'Public Authority' and does not come within the purview of the RTI Act.

 

Advocate Aires Rodrigues, however, submitted that the AG was very much a public authority his being a constitutional post and even enjoying cabinet status.

 

He submitted that the Advocate General as a 'public authority' was required under Section 5 of the Act to designate within 100 days Public Information Officers to provide information to persons requesting the same from the AG's office.

 

Adv Rodrigues has also stated that Section 4 of the Act required the Advocate General to publish and make public within 120 various information details about the AG's office.

 

He also sought the AG of Goa be penalised in terms of section 20 of the RTI Act for not complying with the provisions of the Act for over five years.

 

Meanwhile, Mr Kenny will on February 18 deliver his order on Goa Governor Dr S S Sidhu's plea for constitutional immunity in the RTI case filed against him by Adv Rodrigues.

 

Adv Rodrigues’s complaint against Governor Sidhu follows the stand taken by the Raj Bhavan that the Governor of Goa is not a public authority and does not come within the purview of the Act.

 

In his petition, Adv Rodrigues has stated that the office of the Governor is a constitutional post within the definition of 'Public authority' under section two (h) (a) of the Act.

 

He has stated that as the Governor is a public authority and with even PIOs under the Act being notified, that Raj Bhavan was bound to furnish the information sought and that the refusal was unreasonable, malafide and without reasonable cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
karira

As reported by UNI in newkerala.com on 07 March 2011:

Goa Chief Information Commissioner to pronounce verdict in Right to Information case against Advocate General today - World News, 162790

 

Goa Chief Information Commissioner to pronounce verdict in Right to Information case against Advocate General today

 

Panaji, Mar 7 : Goa Chief Information Commissioner Motilal Kenny will pronounce his verdict today, on the complaint filed by social activist Advocate Aires Rodrigues against state Advocate General Subodh Kantak for not complying with the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

 

Mr Kantak has argued that the AG is not a 'Public Authority' and therefore, does not come under the purview of the RTI Act Advocate Rodrigues, however, submitted that the AG is very much a public authority as it is a constitutional post and it is equivalent to a cabinet rank.

 

Adv Rodrigues further submitted that under Section 5 of the Act, the AG as 'public authority' is required to designate Public Information Officers (PIOs), within 100 days, to provide information to people requesting the same about the AG’s office.

 

The social activist stated that under Section 4 of the Act, the AG is required to publish and make public within 120 days various information details about the AG’s office.

 

He sought that the AG be penalized under section 20 of the RTI Act for not complying with the provisions of the Act for over five years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
karira

As reported in indiablooms.com on 17 March 2011:

Goa Advocate General office details to be made public

 

Goa Advocate General office details to be made public

 

Chief Information Commissioner Motilal Kenny also directed state chief secretary Sanjay Shrivastava to appoint a public information officer (PIO) at AG’s office.

 

The directions follow a complaint filed by lawyer activist Aires Rodrigues against AG Subodh Kantak for not complying with the provisions of the RTI.

 

During the case hearing, Kantak had argued that the AG was not a “Public Authority” and does not come within the purview of the RTI Act.

 

Rodrigues had however challenged his argument by stating that the AG is a constitutional post and even enjoys cabinet status.

 

He had also brought to the notice of the SIC that Section 4 of the RTI Act required the AG to publish and make public within 120 days various information details about the AG’s office.

 

He further sought from the Commission that AG be penalized in terms of section 20 of the RTI Act for not complying with the provisions of the Act for over five years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
prasad.dhirendra

The Advocate Genral is duty bound to answer RTI querrys,oath bound to answer. He is a public servent,nobler public servent,finer public servent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Atul Patankar

As repeorted at timesofindia.indiatimes.com on Mar 18, 2011

 

AG is public authority, comes under RTI purview: GSIC

 

PANAJI: The advocate general (AG) of Goa is a "public authority" and does come within the purview of the Right To Information (RTI) Act, the Goa State Information Commission (GSIC) ruled on Thursday.

 

The Commission has now directed the Goa chief secretary to appoint a public information officer (PIO) under the RTI Act in the office of the advocate general. The chief secretary has also been directed to ensure that the AG's office complies with Section 4 of the RTI Act by displaying all information pertaining to his office on the official website.

 

It may be recalled that a complaint was filed before the GSIC by social activist Aires Rodrigues accusing AG Subodh Kantak of not complying with the provisions of the RTI Act despite the fact that the Act was implemented to promote transparency and accountability.

 

Stating that the AG is a "public authority" as defined in Section 2(h) of the RTI Act 2005, and is a constitutional authority under the Constitution of India, Rodrigues had submitted that as a 'public authority' he was required - under Section 5 of the Act - to designate a PIO within 100 days to provide information to individuals requesting for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • Shree Vathsan
      By Shree Vathsan
      I had sought details of loan and copies of agreement entered with World Bank, JICA etc. of IT Expressway Chennai (created in partnership with Govt of TN) However the PIO has replied that they have moved out of world bank loan and taken loan from other banks details of which cannot be disclosed under 8(1) d of RTI Act citing "commercial confidence".
      However the IT Expressway is a public limited company having entered into agreement with Govt of TN and others for developing and maintaining a particular stretch of road.
       
      Kindly help me frame a good first appeal.
       
      Sent from my SM-J510FN using RTI INDIA mobile app
       
       
       
    • shrivar1212
      By shrivar1212
      Hello,
      I require help on co-operative issue. I had filed the RTI with the PIO, Dy registrar of co-op societies seeking information on affairs of society.
      The PIO has replied stating that the information I am seeking is available with co-operative society. My query is:
      1] Can PIO direct an applicant to private body for information?
      2] The society in question comes under the jurisdiction of the PIO, since PIO is public authority and co-operative society a private body, is it not duty of PIO to seek information from society and give it to me? How can PIO direct me back to society? This is RTI application, either I have to appeal or I have to forego. I cannot complaint against reply. So I want to approach FAA, under what grounds can I?
      3] What kind of violation PIO has committed by directing me back to private society? 
      4] Does co-operative society come under the purview of RTI ACt?
      Your views are appreciated. I am fighting lone battle with corrupt system. 
       

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy